I was watching this on the news a little bit ago and I thought I would share maybe get some opinions on the matter.
I don't really understand why they would propose this bill in the first place. Minnesota is already protected under the self defense law. So why
expand? I feel like people will abuse this if it indeed passes.

I get why the police are so against it. They love to abuse their authority. So this would not be in thier favor. It might be a good idea for the
citizens in that case to protect themselves against the unnecessary and brutal force that some police officers demontrate.

Wait let me make sure I understand this correctly...Residents of Minnesota can use firearms as a means of self-defense, but only inside of their own
homes? If that's the case, then I support this bill. I'm exhausted, though, so maybe I didn't read the article as well as I should have.

Has anyone been criminalized for protecting themselves in any cases because the current law doesn't cover enough situations? I have heard that in
some states, that have a self defense law, but it doesn't go far enough and if you injure someone who is breaking into your house, the criminal can
sue you. Now i'm not sure i believe this, I heard of it by word of mouth so that can be a little iffy. If that was the case in your state though, i
would say you do need a better law for protecting yourself. Police can take a long time to respond in some cities, especially now sense city's are
cutting the forces down even more to shave off money from their budget. Your now more so on your own than previously.

Wait let me make sure I understand this correctly...Residents of Minnesota can use firearms as a means of self-defense, but only inside of their own
homes? If that's the case, then I support this bill. I'm exhausted, though, so maybe I didn't read the article as well as I should have.

As of now yes only inside their homes. I feel like I should support this too but I just know that there will be foolish people out there who will use
it as an excuse to kill. If the other person is dead how is anyone supposed to know who started the confrontation in the first place.

Has anyone been criminalized for protecting themselves in any cases because the current law doesn't state enough. I have heard that in some states,
they have a self defense law, but it doesn't go far enough and if you injure someone who is breaking into your house, the criminal can sue you. Now
i'm not sure i believe this, I heard of it by word of mouth so that can be a little iffy. If that was the case in your state though, i would say you
do need a better law for protecting yourself. Police can take a long time to respond in some cities, especially now sense city's are cutting the
forces down even more to shave off money from their budget. Your now more so on your own than previously.

I have heard that too but from other states. I have never heard of it happening here. But that doesn't mean that it hasn't.

In the state of Minnesota you have the right to defend yourself. If you have been charged with assault, or even murder, but it was in self
defense, you can be found not guilty if you meet certain factors. Generally, in Minnesota you can use force to defend yourself, your home, or others,
but the degree of force which may be used depends upon the circumstances. In order to claim self defense, you cannot have been the aggressor, you must
have a reasonable belief that there is actual and immediate danger of death or great bodily harm, or a felony crime, and the actions you take to
defend yourself must appear necessary.

lol,and it is the police that jumps to stop it?hmmm,i wonder why,kind of puts a balance back again between police and citizens.also making criminals
think about it twice.his life is at stake now.i agree.seems like more respect will come out of it from all three parties involved. and yes i see harm
can come out of it but good out weights the badness i believe.if this is not the case,why does a policeman carry a gun?when dealing with citizens and
criminals all the same,is not our safety as important?

I can't find the text to this bill anywhere, so I feel that it would be naive to comment on it.

However, from what I can find, the biggest problem I have is the part about shooting someone who breaks into your campsite. It's hard to define what
is legally your campsite, and from my years of experience camping all over the country, people tend to walk into your campsite all the time.

Camping is a fairly communal event, and frequently you will have folks come by to ask to borrow something or maybe offer to share some extra food
they've prepared or something. I know that most gun owners are very responsible people who would never harm an innocent person, but the key word
there is "most".

I'm just picturing the inevitable nightmare scenario - "Hey, mind if we borrow a few pieces of firewo- BAM!"

Not saying that it's a bad bill, I just really want to see how it's worded.

lol,and it is the police that jumps to stop it?hmmm,i wonder why,kind of puts a balance back again between police and citizens.also making criminals
think about it twice.his life is at stake now.i agree.seems like more respect will come out of it from all three parties involved. and yes i see harm
can come out of it but good out weights the badness i believe.

That is part of the reason I am torn about this. I can't decide if the good will out weigh the bad.

Originally posted by drwizardphd
I can't find the text to this bill anywhere, so I feel that it would be naive to comment on it.

However, from what I can find, the biggest problem I have is the part about shooting someone who breaks into your campsite. It's hard to define what
is legally your campsite, and from my years of experience camping all over the country, people tend to walk into your campsite all the time.

Camping is a fairly communal event, and frequently you will have folks come by to ask to borrow something or maybe offer to share some extra food
they've prepared or something. I know that most gun owners are very responsible people who would never harm an innocent person, but the key word there
is "most".

I'm just picturing the inevitable nightmare scenario - "Hey, mind if we borrow a few pieces of firewo- BAM!"

Not saying that it's a bad bill, I just really want to see how it's worded.

I wanted to see the bill too. I looked online for a while so I could add it as another link but I couldn't find anything either. I will keep looking
though. Maybe I just overlooked it.

If the other person is dead how is anyone supposed to know who started the confrontation in the first place.

That's a good point,
but that same mindset can be applied to lots of other crimes that lack concrete evidence. For example, there are probably tons of "rapists" who
were simply engaging in consensual sex, but the woman decided to claim that he raped her in order to get some free money or whatever. It's a really
blurry area in the criminal justice system. I guess that's what juries are for.

I was always under the impression that self-defense by use of firearm was allowed anywhere as long as it was actual self-defense. However, I know a
few years ago here in Louisville, Kentucky, there was a Supreme Court ruling that set a precedent to allow people to "defend their vehicle" after
some dude shot a guy that tried to hijack his car or something, so I guess i might be wrong afterall. Anyway, how is it in the rest of the USA? Is
self-defense allowed only in the home in the majority of the nation?

If the other person is dead how is anyone supposed to know who started the confrontation in the first place.

That's a good point,
but that same mindset can be applied to lots of other crimes that lack concrete evidence. For example, there are probably tons of "rapists" who
were simply engaging in consensual sex, but the woman decided to claim that he raped her in order to get some free money or whatever. It's a really
blurry area in the criminal justice system. I guess that's what juries are for.

I was always under the impression that self-defense by use of firearm was allowed anywhere as long as it was actual self-defense. However, I know a
few years ago here in Louisville, Kentucky, there was a Supreme Court ruling that set a precedent to allow people to "defend their vehicle" after
some dude shot a guy that tried to hijack his car or something, so I guess i might be wrong afterall. Anyway, how is it in the rest of the USA? Is
self-defense allowed only in the home in the majority of the nation?

Yeah I thought so too as long as you have the proper permits to carry a gun. Otherwise I think its only in your own home, At least here. I'm even
less sure about other states. They also factor in the circumstances of the situation before it is ruled as self defense.

I have heard that in some states, that have a self defense law, but it doesn't go far enough and if you injure someone who is breaking into your
house, the criminal can sue you. Now i'm not sure i believe this,

My grandfather got sued when his dog bit the guy IN THE HOUSE after he had broken in.

I am a drive by poster here.
Minnesota has a very friendly "abode" protection law.
The only thing this law is going to change is some legal wording as far as "grave bodily" harm and "substantial bodily" harm.........meaning if
you shoot the home invader under the current law, you need to show that you were fearful of being killed or someone else in your abode of course,
(family etc.) The law would change to "substantial" (or something like that) it is a rebutable presumption but it gives the abode shooter cause if
they feared for something less than death......I also believe......damn, this is making me think....scenario is easier.

In Minnesota........a guy breaks open your door and stands inside the home........he is guilty of tresspass....can't shoot him......If he says he is
going to steal your $2,000 t.v....then he intends to commit a felony....shoot him.

If he says he is going to punch you in the face but not steal anything or any other felony....under current law...no shooting him dead.....under
proposed law....if you feel you have a glass jaw and will have to eat out of a straw for an indefinite period of time or if he says he is going to
push grandma down the stairs....shoot him.....

You just have to show in court you had a "reasonable" belief of "substantial" bodily harm

(now....I'm not positive about the wording, but those words are legally important) The new law is giving people more protection in the home than
they already have in Minnesota...that really is the bottom line here.)

Like I said...I am just doing a drive by post here...so I might not be 100% accurate....but I understand why the police and prosecutors are
concerned...the reason is that there are tards out there that think under the proposed new law that they can shoot first and ask questions
later.....if someone breaks into your house and crashes for the night on your couch...you can't shoot him.....no felony....just breaking and entering
and tresspass...no felony...no "reasonable" threat of any bodily harm unless you can argue it in court....

rule of thumb: anywhere outside of your "abode"....if it is about property...no shooting!
No duty to retreat in "abode" but you have to have a "reasonable" belief in *insert legal word* harm.

Not completely sure if this was a true story or not, but I heard that some guy was on the roof of a house he was breaking into, fell through the glass
on the roof and broke his back or something, and sued and won for pain and suffering. That's retarded if true, as is your story.

Originally posted by ucantcmeThat is part of the reason I am torn about this. I can't decide if the good will out weigh the bad.

I live in Missouri and we have the Castle Doctrine and the no Retreat clauses in full effect. Key things to remember about it.

2. A person may not use deadly force upon another person under the circumstances specified in subsection 1 of this section unless:

(1) He or she reasonably believes that such deadly force is necessary to protect himself, or herself or her unborn child, or another against death,
serious physical injury, or any forcible felony;

(2) Such force is used against a person who unlawfully enters, remains after unlawfully entering, or attempts to unlawfully enter a dwelling,
residence, or vehicle lawfully occupied by such person; or

(3) Such force is used against a person who unlawfully enters, remains after unlawfully entering, or attempts to unlawfully enter private property
that is owned or leased by an individual claiming a justification of using protective force under this section.

3. A person does not have a duty to retreat from a dwelling, residence, or vehicle where the person is not unlawfully entering or unlawfully
remaining. A person does not have a duty to retreat from private property that is owned or leased by such individual.

So the way this works here is that if you attempt to enter my dwelling/vehicle - I don't have to wait for your to demonstrate any intent or show a
weapon or prove you had the intent to hurt me I can shoot first. See the deffiniterions of dwelling below; this also applies to vehicles i.e. you try
my car door by force and you meet Mr. 1911. Further - one is immue to civil liability from the dead person or his estate.

If you use deadly force under section 2 the burden is not upon you to prove the burden shall then be on the state to prove beyond a reasonable doubt
that the defendant did not reasonably believe that the use of such force was necessary to defend against what he or she reasonably believed was the
use or imminent use of unlawful force.

That's a pretty high burden - best to not try any shennanigans IMO The state has to prove that I did not really belive that the dead person was
forcing his/her way in or was about to....with only one witness alive that will be hard.

For the guy asking about camping in Missouri the protected area is the tent - bust into someone's tent at night and die its all on you. The campfire
- not so much.

Of course the police don't like it becasue a lot of criminals will end up more dead than in the system and they will have a lot of investigative work
for little reward since the burden on the state is really difficult to prove. Besides they don;t want any trick or treating incidents like in Texas.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.